You’ve got to hand it to AT&T. They don’t like Julius Genachowski’s plan to apply network neutrality rules to wireless networks, and they aren’t shy about saying so.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images Julius GenachowskiNot so for Verizon and Sprint, which declined to answer a direct question about whether they think wireless systems should be covered by net neutrality rules.
The current state of play is vague. In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission issued a broad policy statement for broadband networks, never specifying whether it applied only to wireline Internet service or to wireless service as well. On Monday, Mr. Genachowski, now the commission’s chairman, proposed expanding those principles, formalizing them into official rules and explicitly extending them to wireless networks.
(In typical Obama administration style, the commission has set up a site, OpenInternet.gov where the public can watch Mr. Genachowski’s speech and comment on the issue.)
In its statement, AT&T said it supported applying the existing four neutrality principles to wired networks, and is open to adding a fifth principle that would prevent companies from discriminating against certain services and applications on wired networks. But the company drew the line at wireless networks.
Wireless service doesn’t need regulation, AT&T argued, as it is a very competitive market. The company appears to be most concerned about rules that might force it to eliminate certain restrictions it has that limit how much data wireless customers can use. Wireless networks “are facing incredible bandwidth strains,” the company wrote, and “require continued private investment at very high levels, and pro-active network management.”
The company’s harshest words focused on the F.C.C.’s auction of wireless spectrum last year. One block, purchased by Verizon Wireless, specifically required the winner to open the frequencies to any device and application. AT&T bought other blocks of spectrum that had no such explicit conditions. In its statement today, the company noted “that unencumbered spectrum was sold for many billions more” than the spectrum Verizon bought.
For the F.C.C. to now place such requirements on that spectrum so soon after the auction creates the impression of a ‘bait and switch,’ and could raise questions about the fairness and integrity of the auction process itself.
The C.T.I.A., the wireless trade group, also raised significant reservations about the new rules. It said: “The commission is considering changing the rules after the auction — impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process — just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.”
The two other large wireless companies, however, were much blander in their comments, perhaps in a move not to pick an early fight with their major regulator. Verizon said it supported the existing principles but wanted to avoid new regulations.
We believe that when the F.C.C. reviews the record and looks at the facts, it will be clear that there is no current problem which justifies the risk of imposing a new set of regulations that will limit consumer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders.
The statement did not mention the distinction between wired and wireless networks, and a Verizon spokesman declined to discuss that issue. Sprint’s statement said even less, noting that the company supports an open Internet and looks forward to working with the commission. A Sprint spokeswoman declined to clarify those comments.
Comments are no longer being accepted.